Why don't the passenger trains get better, as the autos do and the aircraft do?

[greyhounds]

OK, I just got back "On The Train".

I first got "On The Train" in 1976 when I obtained my first job in downtown Chicago working for the ICG rayroad company. I rented an apartment in Richton Park and rode the "IC Electric" to and from work.

Since that time, I have changed jobs and industries several times, moved around the Chicago suburban area, etc.

I got "Off The Train" and worked in suburban Chicago where I drove to work. And I've even worked in Minnesota for the past few months. But I just came home.

I've done almost a "180" now. Instead of living due south on the old IC, I live almost due north on the old Soo. In between I've been on the "Old" C&NW and the "old" CB&Q. I've changed, my work has changed, my auto has changed, the planes I fly on have changed.

But these damn trains haven't! Why not?

I really believe that tonight I rode home on a rail passenger car that was in service when I was riding in from Elmhurst on the C&NW in 1980. It sure looked familiar. Same old uncomfortable seating designed to pack as many folks into the car as possible, etc.

OK, this is all I ask in the 21st centruy commute:

1) You don't have to use seats designed in 1956, our autos don't, please give my aging back a respite.

2) You could give us a fold down tray/cup hoder/something. My Ford Car has a cup holder, why can't you? You know, when I get on a train at 6:37 AM a cup of coffee is comforting. Not having to set it on the floor and worry about kicking it over is really comforting.

3) This one's a stretch. Wireless Internet access would be a good thing. We could listen to the radio, check email, watch a DVD, or in that future that you don't think about, watch a TV show through the Internet. Yes, I know bridges and trees get in the way. But we could work that all out.

So, dear Chicago Metra, could you please attempt to bring you service into the 21st centruy before I retire and move to a location in Florida. That situation is now a lot closer than my first trip on the "IC Electric" was in 1976.

[cpbloom]

Passenger trains are better, just not here in the US.

[Anonymous]

That's an easy one to answer.

Money.

Autos make it for their manufacturers.

Airplanes do, for their manufacturers (the fact that you might help the airlines pay for them through your tax contributions notwithstandings).

Passenger trains don't.

You ride Chicago's Metra to work. Metra is supported by tax dollars, just like when I worked in Chicago and rode it. And Metra always has to, when buying new equipment, fight the same fight the airplane manufacturers to - to get the maximum return out of each seat on the bi-levels.

And Amtrak has to fight for each of your tax dollars it gets, and then decide whether to spend it making you more comfortable or making the track smoother, etc.

Money.

Old Timer

[Modelcar]

...Money for sure is the correct answer, but as for other public transportation systems...{airlines}, paying their way....don't think they do that any more than rail passenger systems do. Some how it has been the rail passenger industry {public service systems}, that get the short end of the money stick but must deal with the onslaught of the hoard of passenger transit on a daily basis and it seems there is never adequate amount of Capital to purchase newest state of the art systems...at least in this country. I wonder how this structure of providing money to do all of what is needed will ever change......

[Overmod]

On the cupholders/trays -- if there's a chance they'd contribute to rider satisfaction, or improve revenue (for example in off-peak travel), it would be worth pursuing a grant or other financing to develop them. Who has contacts at METRA with distinctive competence?

On the wireless network: Technology exists, and is cheap now, to provide coverage within railroad cars, even at acceptable throughput for a whole gallery car full of commuters. High-bandwidth connection between the train and "the Internet" is a bit more involved, but still practicable. Again, revenue to equipment providers and ISPs is the issue: How do you propose to get people to pay for this service when it's only used for a short time, and if made free, who provides the operating support?

[Junctionfan]

VIA in Canada, does most of the commuting for the "Windsor Corridor". We don't have really alot of commuter trains services other than in major cities like Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto so VIA is our dependant hence the support of the citizens of Canada.

VIA coach cars (LRC) anyways, have jacks to hook up your lap tops to, there is trays and cup holders, the food and drinks are more than exceptable (that's good), and the seats often make you want to sleeps they are that comfortable.

From my personal observations and opinion, it seems that political party contributions often play a key role in this. In Canada, we don't really have a lot of need to do this in this area because VIA is too essential to screw around with but in the U.S, it seems that there are a lot of transportation competitions and would think that the auto manufacturers do a tremendous amount of party contributions to both Democratic and Republican parties to keep them popular. It is unclear as I haven't any proof to back this up but, I would speculate if Bombardier, Alstom, GE, and maybe even the railroads did enough contribution to "influence" pro passenger rail service, perhaps the governments of various levels would be more apt to lean for better passenger services logistically, quantity and quality wise. I suspect that this is what is wrong with Amtrak and maybe that is what's wrong with Chicago Metra. I sincerely hope I am wrong but don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Well..Here's an example. When the South Shore Line (NICTD) was ordering their third round of new cars some time ago, a new walkover (reversable) seat, that was comfortable was on the market at a price comparable to the standard seats. An official of the line, from the political realm, not from railroading, nixed the idea of the new seats. His reasoning was that the new ones would make the old ones "Look like a mistake."
Mitch

[jeaton]

By majority vote, we have been placing people in elected positions who advocate reduced government spending and either the reduction of taxes or at least no increases. On the national level, we elect people who believe that engaging a war on terrorism all over the world is a priority, no matter that the money spent for that activity could also be used to help meet our domestic public needs and perhaps some conveniences.

Perhaps comfortable seating on public transit is one of the sacrifices we are being asked to make by our elected officials.

Jay

[Modelcar]

....And hopefully in the near future we will learn to cut back of trying to change the whole world. That it is not affordable by us....or our grandchildren. Right now, it rages on.

[greyhounds]

Oh for Cripe's Sake!

What a bunch a Democrats/socialists/Canadians! You guys don't have a clue.

Do you have any concept of why Ford put a better seat in my car with a cup holder? I'd guess you all don't. It's because they figured out that I'd pay for such things.

Metra, being a socialist/gubernmint entity, likewise, does not have a clue. When it was formed, as a thinly concealed effort to transfer income from the suburbs to the city, the great George W. Hilton said: "I can't think of a more regressive way to spend tax money than hauling the citizens of Barrington around, but it's all the rage." So, we're stuck with it.

But they don't have to offer one class of service on their socialist trains now do they? They could offter better seating, beverage service, and high speed wireless Internet - and not have to "beg" for the funding now couldn't they. They could simply charge extra for such things. It sure would be nice.

We, the people of suburbia, are not all paupers. I freely choose to pay for access to the Internet via a DSL service, satelite TV, meals taken at a restaurant, etc. Why shouldn't I have similar options on the commuter train. I'll tell you why I don't - it's because the damn gubernmint is in charge.

OK, I'm going to try. I'm going to try to form a for profit corporation that buys space from Metra and resells it to the public with enhanced amenities - I'll probably be blocked by our socialist gubernmint here in Illinois, but I'm going to try.

[Anonymous]

The answer is obvious, and it all revolves around the dichotomy of whether to use tax dollars to operate a public entity, or to use tax dollars to subsidize a private entity. Airlines do receive much in the way of public assistance, but they are still private enterprises, thus the improvements to customer satisfaction are still at play e.g. competition. Amtrak and public transit do not have that all important incentive, because their existence is not based on customer satisfaction, but on government direction.

If only the transit agencies/Amtrak would take my advice, and become oversight agencies implemented to provide public assistance to private rail operators (and subsequently give up on running their own trains), then you would see the types of customer satisfaction improvements which you desire.

In terms of fostering constantly improving levels of customer satisfaction, it is a much better utilization of tax dollars to subsidize private enterprise than it is to fund public enterprises. Government is supposed to be charged with the oversight of private industry, not in the operation of industry.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by greyhounds

Oh for Cripe's Sake!

What a bunch a Democrats/socialists/Canadians! You guys don't have a clue.

Do you have any concept of why Ford put a better seat in my car with a cup holder? I'd guess you all don't. It's because they figured out that I'd pay for such things.

Metra, being a socialist/gubernmint entity, likewise, does not have a clue. When it was formed, as a thinly concealed effort to transfer income from the suburbs to the city, the great George W. Hilton said: "I can't think of a more regressive way to spend tax money than hauling the citizens of Barrington around, but it's all the rage." So, we're stuck with it.

But they don't have to offer one class of service on their socialist trains now do they? They could offter better seating, beverage service, and high speed wireless Internet - and not have to "beg" for the funding now couldn't they. They could simply charge extra for such things. It sure would be nice.

We, the people of suburbia, are not all paupers. I freely choose to pay for access to the Internet via a DSL service, satelite TV, meals taken at a restaurant, etc. Why shouldn't I have similar options on the commuter train. I'll tell you why I don't - it's because the damn gubernmint is in charge.

OK, I'm going to try. I'm going to try to form a for profit corporation that buys space from Metra and resells it to the public with enhanced amenities - I'll probably be blocked by our socialist gubernmint here in Illinois, but I'm going to try.

I see no reason why you have to insult Canada. We have a pretty good clue on rail service you know.

[Overmod]

greyhounds -- you've got a slightly wrong operational model. Do what New Yorkers did on LIRR... and perhaps what Bostonians did over a century ago with the 'Dude Flyer'' on a somewhat grander scale. Have what is in essence a private car, paid for via subscription (so METRA 'gets the money first' or at least is assured it's there.) Then run this in trains as a dedicated 'parlor car' or whatever. Colorado Railcar specializes in the appropriate interior conversions, and I would strongly suspect that adding or changing out one car on certain trains wouldn't cause heart attacks -- zardoz, you would know whether that's right or not.

Socialists have always been big on privilege... for themselves, that is. Especially when someone pays more than their share of the bills for the whole schmear.

Let me rephrase my comment on Internet access a different way: Precisely how much would you pay in order to have Internet access on your commute? In dollars and cents, either per month or per day at your option -- and how would you like to be billed for it? Would you tolerate ads, or different levels of service, if it were provided 'free' otherwise? Would you pay extra for 'priority' service or higher bandwidth (etc.) or for entertainment content (e.g. music or movies)?

[greyhounds]

Good place to start. I'll email Colorado Railcar. I'm looking at my Laz-Y-Boy chair right now. I can sleep in that thing just fine. Something like it on Metra would be a welcome option.

Before The Days of Metra, the C&NW had private cars on trains going up the north shore line. I ain't no Loop Lawyer raking in the truly Big Bucks like those north shore guys, but I'm not just "gettin by" either. I'd like a better option than what I have - and I'd pay extra for it.

As to the Internet thingy - I don't know. I currently pay $26.99/month for DSL from SBC and they're offering to cut that to something like $16.99 and provide nationwide long distance coupled with local serivce for under $50.00/month. I think I'm going to switch our mobile phones from Sprint (ex SP guys!) and just subscribe to everything through SBC. They've got a tie in ith Dish Network too.

I'd easily go for a 50% premium on my DSL service to have it available on the train. I would like movies as a pay per view. Basically I'd be looking for radio stream, email and sites such as this one. Internet TV will become important in the next few years.

Any Internet service that offered wireless on the trains would have a tremendous competitive advantage - if it offered that service as part of a bundle that included local phone, long distance, satelite TV, home Internet etc. It would be another selling point.

People now pay a dollar for the Wall Street Journal and/or $0.50 for a local paper to kill time on the trains. (and they have that time to kill each way per day.)

A percentage of them would pay the same or more for Internet access - if such access could be put together for an individual charge of $20/month I think it would work. If the service attracted 15 people per train it would be $300 per tain per month. That's reasonable considering the number of folks on those trains. There are some real hot shot business dudes/law dogs/gubernmit folks riding on those trains that can't wait to get to the office to start throwing their weight around. They'd jump at the chance to go online before they got to their office.

[Anonymous]

Whenever RTA/Metra asks for a fare increase, the riders, the media, the suburban mayors, the SBA, plus a dozen other interest groups all go into panic mode - 'how dare you raise our fares or increase the gas/sales tax'. If the RTA asked for a fare increase to install cupholders, that would probably be the end of the RTA. This isn't a national or even state political issue, it's all local/regional and also part of the continuing cat-fight between the City and 'Burbs;

I'd guess that the typical ride on Metra is 20-30 minutes. By the time someone plugged in a laptop, got connected, signed on, and deleted all the SPAM from their EMail box, it would be time to get off the train. C&NW used to run extra-fare club cars on the longer commutes, but I believe the smoking ban and problems with rowdy passengers may have ended that. Maybe they could bring something like that back as an Internet Cafe.

[TH&B]

The comuter agencies would rather spend money wrapping their coaches with advertising from the outside and earn some money that way while restricting the poor passenger's veiw out the "wrapped" window. They'd rather not spend money making the passenger more comfortable wich would increase ridership or allow them to charge premium fees.

[jeaton]

Greyhounds

Just where in the #@%! do you think the front end money is going to come for your little conveniences? From the oil wells under the storage yards?

The last I checked most commuter agencies have to use every arguement they can muster just to get the capitol for a bare bones system. Consider yourself lucky you don't have to drive over to Fox Lake and ride on wood benches, instead of using the much newer service from Antioch. And yes, perhaps you would be willing to pay a fare that at least covers the operating cost of the service. If you are willing to go that far, maybe you could ask for a little more.

[Anonymous]

Actually, cupholders are available, at least on the Bombardier (nee UTDC) bilevels. Coaster put them on first and they were a major hit. Probably on the other new competition, as well. It all goes to the seating mfr and who specs the equipment.

You guys need to remember that most of these transit folks are bus people and politicians. They need a little more convincing.

[Junctionfan]

I don't know what the socialist do over there but here, we like our passenger trains and commuter trains and try to do a good job in keeping the ridership happy as well as consistantly higher. Perhaps those gubernmit's are not true socialists; it is difficult to be a true socialist in a Republic country unlike Canada which is a "parlimentary democracy". NDP and Liberal are well liked an in fact the Conservatives are not as favourable.

[Anonymous]

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says anyone has to provide anyone else with transportation. If anyone wants an alternative to walking he/she should be willing to pay the full social cost of that service. We built our freeway system as a public works project, but put signs on all the entrance ramps prohibiting use by a large segment of the population that cannot, should not or chooses not to drive cars. And we've done nothing to guarantee that this exclusion will not result in disenfranchisement. We've put too much of our new growth in places that are not served by alternatives to the auto. When we sit down and try to understand what rights non-motorists have in a society where driving is a privilege (not a right) we might make progress toward having a transportation system that serves everyone equitably in a cost-effective manner. Trouble with us humans is we're always looking for a "cure" for walking.

[Anonymous]

Back in the dark ages, C&NW ran two special parlor-type coaches on a Kenosha-Chicago commuter train for those interested paying extra for cup holders, La-Z-Boys, etc.

I don't know if they still do this, but I don't think it was a private affair; it was started by C&NW before the age of Metra.

And Lincoln 5390, I'm not sure that the Interstate Highway System was a mere public works project. I believe it was sold as a necessity for national defense. Like it would do a hell of a lot of good for that purpose around the big cities today . . .

Old Timer

[Anonymous]

Oh, and Lincoln5390, do you really think it would be a good idea for Joe Blow to get his 25MPH Moped, or bicycle, or Amish buggy up on the Interstate?

I don't think so, and it looks like a lot of folks agree.

Old Timer

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lincoln5390
We built our freeway system as a public works project, but put signs on all the entrance ramps prohibiting use by a large segment of the population that cannot, should not or chooses not to drive cars. And we've done nothing to guarantee that this exclusion will not result in disenfranchisement. We've put too much of our new growth in places that are not served by alternatives to the auto. When we sit down and try to understand what rights non-motorists have in a society where driving is a privilege (not a right) we might make progress toward having a transportation system that serves everyone equitably in a cost-effective manner. Trouble with us humans is we're always looking for a "cure" for walking.

Denying the use of freeways to pedrestrians, bicycles, etc is not disenfranchisement. The freeway is not a safe environment for non-mototists. The motorists pay "user fees" in the form of gasolene taxes. Non-motorists do not.

Freeways were originally developed for rural long distance high speed travel. The plan was for motorist to use the existing street and highway system upon entering urban areas. The urban freeway was developed later to accommodate local traffic, not as part of the "defence highway" system.

Most pedrestrian/bicycle/moped trips are short distance and in built-up areas where there are usually, but admittedly not allways, alternative routes better suited to them.

In the early days of freeway construction, there were a number of places in California where freeways were built on existing highways, replacing them instead of supplementing them.

The need to accommodate non-motorized transportation was recognized later. In the 1970's California developed a "bike route system" and published maps. In many places where there were no good alternatives bicyclists were permitted on the freeway shoulders. Today, development of local road systems, new frontage roads, and purpose built bicycle facilities has reduced the number of places where use of the freeway is necessary. The bicycle facilities and frontage roads are usually are financed from the taxes motorists pay.

A freeway is not a fun place to be on foot. I work for CALTRANS (California DOT) and have been there. We don't want pedestrians on the freeways for the same reason the railroads don't want them on their right of way. It is not safe and the potentially interfere with the operation of the facility.

It is expensive to design and construct the freeways to safely accomodate pedestrians and bicycles in addition to motorists or build bike paths. It should only considered when alternate routes are not available. Even in many places where it has been done, the volumn of non-motorized traffic does not justify the cost.

[Modelcar]

We're not looking for the "cure for walking" fast enough...the rest of the world is starting to catchup and soon many will pass.....

[CP5415]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I don't know what the socialist do over there but here, we like our passenger trains and commuter trains and try to do a good job in keeping the ridership happy as well as consistantly higher. Perhaps those gubernmit's are not true socialists; it is difficult to be a true socialist in a Republic country unlike Canada which is a "parlimentary democracy". NDP and Liberal are well liked an in fact the Conservatives are not as favourable.

WOW, how can you say that the NDP are well liked?
The lonly reason the liberal's were voted in Ontario is because the voters were tired of the Conservatives!
Look where voting in the Fiberals got us.
4 years of twisted truths & a bunch of lies!


Gordon

[Paul Milenkovic]

Autos have gotten a lot better over the 30 years I have been driving -- cup holders aside, the cars last much longer, no longer rust out after 3 seasons, have air bags and anti-lock brakes, you can bend a Ford Taurus around curves that would have had the tires squealing on a Ford Grenada, and so on.

Have airplanes got any better? On account of deregulation and the public's desire for cheap tickets, the seats have gotten much more cramped -- you can't even work with a laptop on the tray table if the person in front reclines the seat. Don't know if it is the post-9-11 traffic decline, but schedule-keeping has improved a lot compared to 10 years ago. I remember when most trips had some kind of incident -- cancelled flight, major delay , missed connection. These days it seems all my flights run within 10 minutes of schedule, I make all my connections, checked baggage service seems to work.

Another trend with airlines is this regional jet -- the mini jets replacing all of the "crop duster" prop planes (yeah, yeah, I know something like an ATR turboprop is flow by two pilots with ATP ratings and has all the modern navigation gear, but my sister calls them crop dusters). Some of the regional jets have as many seats as the DC-9's and BAC-11's when they first came out, but I think there must be a union-busting aspect to all of these mini jets sprouting up like weeds at the O'Hare terminals because I understand that their pilots make half the pay of the people flying a B-737.

Now take the Canadair RJ . . . please! In ground taxi, you feel every expansion crack on the taxiway (1950s vintage Talgo anyone?). Inside they are so small you are begging to step outside to change your mind. And they are used on over-1000 mile route segments if the route is "thin" enough -- you are cooped up for 2-3 hours at a time. And asking fat passengers to move to open seats in the back of the plane for weight and balance considerations is increasingly talked about.

As to trains, I was just in Philly and rode the SEPTA electric MU cars. The trains have 3-2 seating, but the seats had good contouring and I would take them anyday over the sideways gallery seat section on the Chicago bi-levels. The service is great, and there is a direct route between the Philly airport, the Amtrak NEC station, and the downtown. I just want to get from point A to point B efficiently and I don't much care about cup holders. Too bad SEPTA is going broke and rural Pennsylvania won't part with tax dollars to keep this thing going.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lincoln5390

There's nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says anyone has to provide anyone else with transportation. If anyone wants an alternative to walking he/she should be willing to pay the full social cost of that service. We built our freeway system as a public works project, but put signs on all the entrance ramps prohibiting use by a large segment of the population that cannot, should not or chooses not to drive cars. And we've done nothing to guarantee that this exclusion will not result in disenfranchisement. We've put too much of our new growth in places that are not served by alternatives to the auto. When we sit down and try to understand what rights non-motorists have in a society where driving is a privilege (not a right) we might make progress toward having a transportation system that serves everyone equitably in a cost-effective manner. Trouble with us humans is we're always looking for a "cure" for walking.

That's it in a nutshell. Well said.

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CP5415

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

I don't know what the socialist do over there but here, we like our passenger trains and commuter trains and try to do a good job in keeping the ridership happy as well as consistantly higher. Perhaps those gubernmit's are not true socialists; it is difficult to be a true socialist in a Republic country unlike Canada which is a "parlimentary democracy". NDP and Liberal are well liked an in fact the Conservatives are not as favourable.

WOW, how can you say that the NDP are well liked?
The lonly reason the liberal's were voted in Ontario is because the voters were tired of the Conservatives!
Look where voting in the Fiberals got us.
4 years of twisted truths & a bunch of lies!


Gordon

I didn't vote Liberal or as you accurately call them Fiberals. I voted N.D.P. In the riding of Niagara Centre, I helped re elect Peter Kormos; the only NDP MPP who had the brass to vote against the Social Contract and lost his cabinet position over it. The N.D.P now have learned from their mistakes and with the total disappointments from the Conservatives and now the Liberals, who do you think will become the next government?

[daveklepper]

They did get lots better when they made money for their owners. The post WWII streamliers nearly all initially made money. Today they get lots better when there is political clout behind them, like California cars and Acela in the Northeast.

MOney MOney money!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

1. Lincoln5390 did not say the system is disenfranchisement. He said there is "no guarantee there is not." That is a distinct difference: the highway system has been presumed beneficial to all since the early 1900s when the first federal road bills were passed, and that all would want it and find it of equal value. Was that presumption valid then? Is it valid now?

2. Motorists' user fees pay only part of the cost of the highway system. They do not pay for the lost property tax, which is not insignificant. Nor do they pay for the externalized marginal costs of operation. The Federal Highway Adminstration estimates that for the year 2000 the externalized costs not covered by user fees was $50 billion! That portion is shouldered by the general public irrespective of their use or disuse of the highways. Moreover, the feeder network of city streets and county roads is paid for mostly from general funds, not by user fees. That's another subsidy. Every day I work at home, I'm subsidizing with my property tax the *** next door who commutes 30 miles one-way to work. I would like him and everyone like him to quit driving so darn much, so highway and street expenses can go down, and, thus, my property tax can go down, too. Or, the highways and streets can start paying their share of property tax, and the user fees can go up to cover that. Then and only then will my neighbor be paying his fully allocated costs, and I won't be paying some of his costs for him.

3. Lincoln5390 illustrated the unequal aspects of the highway system by noting that a buggy or pedestrian cannot use it. His point seems obvious to me: the federal government carved out a huge public work that is subsidized by everyone but is not of equal utility to everyone and is not of equal right of access to everyone. It is limited access. The point that the buggy cannot drive on the Interstate is not that it should; it's that the public built an exclusionary system but asks everyone to pay for it. This is fair?

I'm not advocating that we tear up the highway system, especially now that a great deal of the U.S. economy is wrapped around it. I'm advocating that before we reaffirm the decision that the highway system should continue to be subsidized, we should make sure that we have not slaughtered common sense and logic to reach that conclusion. Otherwise we're just voting our prejudices.

It's possible, that if we costed it out, we might find that the highway system doesn't quite return the value for our tax dollars and user fees that we think we're getting. We'll never know as long as we believe in the myth that user fees pay the whole bill.

For more FHA info on costs, see: http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/janpr/cost.htm

Wow! So much to refute, so little patience on my part....

1. "Disenfranchisement" is nothing but a leftist buzzword meant to give credence to those who opt out of normal societal functionality. For the whole highway usage issue, if someone chooses not to own a proper vehicle and subsequently is not allowed to use the highway system sans a vehicle, that is not disenfranchisement, it is the consequence of his/her own free will. If said person did own a vehicle, had it licsensed, fueled up, et al, but was still exclued from using the highway system (e.g. based on race, religion, etc.), then the case could be made for true disenfranchisement, but obviously that ain't happening. Lincoln 5390's statement is nothing short of absurd.

2. Regarding property taxes, that as you should be well aware is a localized issue, not a federal issue, thus should be excluded from a debate on the national highway system and the subsequent user fee support system. If your state chooses to fund streets via property taxes rather than allowing a local option fuel tax, you need to elect new local leaders. As far as we know, property taxes are not being used to fund the U.S. highway system, although local access to terminals by interstate drivers can be subsidized by idiosyncracies of the local tax structure. Again, if you don't like it, you certainly have the power to change it, more so at the local level than the national level.

3. Regarding the concept of "externalized costs", again we are dealing more with a subjective analysis than an actual market force. I notice that the focal point of determining externalized costs is in congested urbania, not the wide open spaces between the blue states. One of the perversions of the Interstate Highway system is that more and more funds are being used for urban highways e.g. commuter roads. This is outside the original intent of the Interstate System, which as it's name implies, is supposed to be about interstate transportation fluidity, not about encouraging the wretched excesses of overpopulated urbania.

Then again, if we are going to try and put a figure out there for "externalized costs", shouldn't we also try and calculate "externalized benefits" as well? Why is the focus of externalization so one sided? Perhaps to make a point of skewing the political playing field to the left? How can any rational person try and attribute a cost by drivers to the thouroughly disproved concept of man-caused global warming? Who's to say that the motorists contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere isn't actually enhancing CO2 availability to plant growth (which would be a subjectively assumed external benefit)? What about the intangible benefits of being able to own a home in the suburbs while working at a high paying job in the city? How do you put a price on that kind of freedom?

The point is this: Either we caculate both the externalized costs and benefits of our national highway system, or leave out all externalities when determining true societal costs. Such subjective variables can only pervert the analysis.